March 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Israeli court has ruled that two lesbians who created a child through in-vitro fertilization are both biological mothers of the child, according to reports in the Israeli media.

The couple, which is not named, reportedly conceived the child in-vitro with the egg of one partner and the sperm of a male donor in 2006. The embryo was then implanted in the womb of the other lesbian partner.

When Israel’s Interior Ministry decided that the birth mother was the only mother, and that the other partner would have to adopt to obtain parental rights, the couple sued, claiming sex discrimination on the grounds that a man who contributed his sperm would likely win in a similar paternity suit, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Although the court agreed in this case to grant maternal status to both women, the ruling is not likely to have immediate implications for Israeli society, according to the couple’s attorney, Naama Tzoref-Halevy who told the Post that the Health Ministry ceased permitting such surrogacy arrangements between lesbian couples in 2011.

Tzoref-Halevy called the Health Ministry’s policy “discrimination against same-sex partners.” The Health Ministry has responded that the existing law only allows surrogacy for fertility problems, the Post reports.

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a pro-life and pro-family activist who sometimes acts as a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America and the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, told LifeSiteNews that the Health Ministry’s decision was likely to be the result of Orthodox Jews who are fighting against sexual immorality and abortion in Israel.

“To use such technology, even if you want to go on the side that facilitates a husband and wife building a family, that certain procedures may be used, even if you take that position, certainly its a corruption of making a family to have this with two same-gender people, so this would be absolutely prohibited religiously, morally, ethically to do this kind of a thing not in the confines of a traditional marriage,” he said, calling it “immoral craziness.”

Levin blamed the previous policy on government officials who “ape everything, every cultural downtrend.”

“We dare not turn a blind eye to that,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Our love of the Holy Land, and respect for Jewish tradition, which was holiness and morality, should not lead us to blindly accept the craziness that goes on there, whether its several tens of thousands of abortions a year, whether it is homosexual parades in various locations, including the holy city of Jerusalem, whether it’s this kind of craziness with lesbians being implanted with in-vitro fertilized eggs,” said Levin.

Isn’t it already an issue with “surrogate mothers?” Just because you carry the baby doesn’t make you a “biological” mother. The sperm and egg define the biology of the kid. Seems like this would be a bad precedent that could impact the whole surrogate mother situation.

4
posted on 03/14/2012 3:36:40 PM PDT
by JediJones
(The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)

Quite strange. Solomon would have known how to handle it. A secular court, I don’t know, I guess this is a solution. Should the lesbians split, the custody battle won’t be much different than married lesbians in states in the US that allow it. Though irrelevant, I’m motherhood would rest with the mother who carried the child. Which is probably where it belongs. Since we’re doing these things, to protect infertile mothers impregnated by donated eggs.

5
posted on 03/14/2012 4:12:33 PM PDT
by SJackson
(The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement)

And the guy will have to pay the child support! See this example. Even though the sperm donor in the Israeli case isn’t considered the father I’m sure the lawyers will find a way around that so the man has to pay.

Seems to me that "a bad precedent that could impact the whole surrogate mother situation" could be a good thing.

Hear me out. The man who provided the sperm is the genetic father and should have the obligation to provide for the child for the next 18 years and have a say in how the child is raised.. The woman who provided the ovum is the genetic mother, and the very same responsibility and rights as the father. The woman who gave birth is the gestational mother and should also have an 18-year support obligation.

Let's get the six grandparents, the sperm-donor's legal wife, the OB/GYN and the fertility lab technicians in there too.

The baby is the non-consenting experimental subject and victim, and should have a right to sue all three or nine or 12 of them.

If it is determined thst the whole blasted science project / social experiment has gotten so wretchedly complicated that the whole thing is recognized as "not in the best interests of the child," maybe we could get IVF banned.

Anything that wrecks the "whole surrogate mother situation" --- permanently--- would be a very good thing. IVF should be illegal.

10
posted on 03/14/2012 4:24:25 PM PDT
by Mrs. Don-o
("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious." George Orwell)

Parenthood is now a contract issue. A mother who uses a donated egg is the mother, the egg donors "rights" are an issue to the courts. Like surrogates.

While I realize this is not the case, it is my understanding that, traditionally, what ensures a person is Jewish is being born from a Jewish woman, as (again traditionally), one could not prove who was the father. Of course, in the present age, that is no longer the case since we can trace DNA. That said, this particular case presents a unique situation since one woman donated an egg and the other donated her uterus for gestation. How much sicker than this can society become! This, IMHO, is such a violation of Jewish tradition and heritage. My empathy is for the rabbis who have to deal with this nonsense.

13
posted on 03/14/2012 4:38:58 PM PDT
by NYer
(He who hides in his heart the remembrance of wrongs is like a man who feeds a snake on his chest. St)

My question is, who makes the cake, the cook or the oven? If one dyke and a donor whip up a batch of baby batter and put it in the other dyke to cook it, doesn’t it seem fit the the other dyke was actually just a usable instrument? She has nothing to do with the actual creation. Surrogate status at best.

This ruling is from a secular court, so Rabbis don’t deal with it directly. You’ll note the condemnation of the process in the article, though irrelevant. The question of whether the child is Jewish would be an issue left to religious authorities. Presuming the “two mommies” are Jewish, I doubt it would be an issue. If not, quite a mess though I suspect the “birth” mother, I’ll call her the carrier, would prevail. But I admit I’ve nothing to base that on other than common sense.

15
posted on 03/14/2012 4:52:56 PM PDT
by SJackson
(The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement)

What a perverse situation this is. The mother of the child is the donor of the egg. The father is who the father is.
There is no other person lurking in the shadows. That’s all there is. That’s all there ever will be. You can cloud it by putting another woman in the picture, but the mother is the mother. You can see why Moses stated it the way he did.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.